It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
fromEllen G White and her status Wiki entry
"God has children, many of them, in the Protestant churches, and a large number in the Catholic churches, who are more true to obey the light and to do [to] the very best of their knowledge than a large number among Sabbathkeeping Adventists who do not walk in the light. [3SM 386.2]"
— Ellen White, Selected Messages, book 3, p.386.
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
That doesn't stop the steady stream of Catholic and Jesuit priests we keep finding infiltrating our churches and schools trying to destroy us from the inside out over the past 80 years. Trying to destroy our faith and doctrines over and over again.
That doesn't stop the Jesuits in China counterfeiting our Adventist book on the history of the protestant reformation and end time prophecy
Today the pope’s Jesuits are not only entrenched at the highest levels of all branches and departments of the U.S. Government, but they are also entrenched at the highest levels of virtually all the major corporations and industries in the United States. The Jesuits are the major stockholders of many of the largest corporations. They own 51% of the stock in Bank of America for instance. And because the papacy is a so-called church, they pay not one penny of taxes. Because they are a so-called church, they are able to operate internationally outside of the laws and legal proceedings everyone else must follow.
Here are a few of the Jesuit-controlled corporations that totally support their Jesuits in congress and the government: American Airlines, TWA, Anheuser Busch, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Boeing, Cigna, Coca-Cola, Daimler Chrysler, Exxon, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, May Company, McDonald’s, Motorola, Philip Morris, Price-Waterhouse, Rite Aid, RJR Nabisco, Sony Corp. of America, Texaco, United Parcel Service, Walt Disney Company, and Wells Fargo.
The Jesuits are not recognized by the general populace because of their treachery and secrecy. They tell no one that they are Jesuits. They even belong to other churches, other cultures, and other organizations, that they have infiltrated, to hide their identity and to control these organizations.
There are millions and millions of the pope’s Jesuits. They are everywhere. They are into everything. They are into every major organization, and control nearly every political organization and government in the world. Because of the Jesuits’ extreme secrecy, many of these organizations and governments are totally unaware that they are being infiltrated and controlled. (Source)
Hmmm, so this little insignificant church with its quirky teachings is the only one the Catholic church acknowledges follows the Bible (as I have documented previously with quotes) yet the Catholic church feels it necessary for us to be target number 1 to infiltrate and try destroy and alter our teachings through deception.
Posted by: Sybil « on: October 17, 2011, 06:49:34 AM on the Remnant Online email forum »:
I made an inquiry to Elder Fagal at the EGW Estate. Here is his response:
Dear Sister,
Good to hear from you again! We have made inquiry about this with the Adventist leadership that deals with China, and they do not have an ongoing concern. There were some books that were modified and published, but according to sources in China, the perpetrators have been caught and the church members there have been informed of the problem, so they know about the tainted books. We have no information here that Jesuits were involved in the counterfeiting, as reports had claimed.
I hope this may help. Thank you for writing, and God bless!
William Fagal
Associate Director
Ellen G. White Estate
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600 U.S.A.
www.whiteestate.org...
mail @ whiteestate.org (Source)
Your outrage at the blatant changing of the words in your holy book is understandable. It is outrageous.
It brings up the obvious question, though, that is: Do you think yours is the only book that has been altered to suit someone else's goals?
If you acknowledge it was done to yours, then, do you ALSO acknowledge that ANY "Bible" VERSION is very likely to have been MODIFIED from a previous version as well?
David Otis Fuller, D.D., says fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles.
The first stream which carried the Received Text [Textus Receptus] in Hebrew and Greek, precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian and the churches of the Reformation.
These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even the enemies of the Received Text admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are of this class.
The second stream is a small one of very few manuscripts. These last manuscripts are represented:
a. In Greek: - The Vatican MS., or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph [found in 1844]
b. In Latin: - The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome. (383 A.D.)
c. In English: - The Jesuit Bible of 1582 [used to counteract the reformation bible], which later with vast changes is seen in the Douay, or Catholic Bible.
d. In English again: - In many modern Bibles.
source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 64
We need to understand, that many of the new translations are taken from old manuscripts. People think that these are more reliable. In actual fact they are saying , that a manuscript found in a waste paper basket in a cave in Mt. Sinai and questionable manuscripts from Alexandria in Egypt [a hub of occultism], are more reliable than the Received Text.
Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 15
Origen [an initiate in mystery schools of occultism], being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt.
source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 16
331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an 'ecumenical Bible' be written [to change the Word of God using Gnostic writings so that the pagans and the Christian's might be able to get along, the early Christians rejected those writings as not from God and these corrupted versions from Eusebius got shelved in various libraries unused, later to be dug up and considered 'ancient manuscripts', about 50 copies made were found largely in the occultist centers of Rome and Alexandria]. Eusebius, a follower of Origen, was assigned to direct this task. Eusebius rejected the deity of Christ and claimed that Christ was a created being. This error is called the Arian heresy.
1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This manuscript repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done by Euebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the 'ecumenical Bible' of Constantine.
1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimizes the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. These two manuscripts were probably two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.
1881 A. D. The Westcott and Hort [Jesuit agents of Rome disguising themselves as protestants to try destroy protestantism from the inside out as I will show] Greek Text was introduced. This text departed from the Textus Receptus [aka the Received Text] and follows the Vatican and Sinaitic corruptions.
It must be emphasized that the argument is not between an ancient text and a recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one which was rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries.
source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 46
The Jesuits were called to help and they said, "We must undermine the Bible of the Protestants and destroy their teachings."
...The Queen of England realizing the damage the Jesuit Bible would do, sent to Europe for Beza, Who was with John Calvin, to help...Thomas Cartwright.
With one hand he took hold of all the Greek manuscripts and with the other hand he took hold of all the Latin manuscripts from the Received Text, and he hit the Jesuit Bible blow and blow...Finally the Spanish Armada [sent by the Vatican] came against England with 136 armed ships, with some 50 cannons...England could only gather 30 ships and these were lead by Franis Drake. Freak storms came down the English Channel and the Spanish ships were found wrecked right up to the Scottish coast...
Source: Les Garrett, 1982. 'Which Bible Can We Trust?' Christian Centre Press, p. 60
Jesuit View of the Bible
The Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom whole it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it...for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us.."
source: 'The Jesuits in History', Hector Macpherson, (springfield, Missouri: Ozark Book Publishers, 1997; originally published in 1900) Appendix 1.
Jesuit Catechism
Q. What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?
A. The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside.
Q. What is the Pope?
A. He is the Vicar of Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope
source: Roy Livesey, 1998, Understanding the New Age: World Government and World Religion (Chichester, England: New Wine Press) p. 104)
Before the English people could go the way of the Continent and be brought to question their great English Bible, the course of their thinking must be changed. Much had to be done to discredit, in their eyes, The Reformation - its history, doctrines, and documents - which they looked upon as a great work of God. This task was accomplished by those who, while working under cover, passed as friends. In what numbers the Jesuits were at hand to bring this about, the following words, from one qualified to know, will reveal:
source: 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated' Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Leaves of Autumn Books, 1996
Despite all the persecution they (the Jesuits) have met with, they have not abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among the English clergy; among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. I could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest, or how a Protestant priest could be a Jesuit; but my Confessor silenced my scruples by telling me, omnia munda mundis, and that St. Paul became a Jew that he might save the Jews; it was no wonder, therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant, for the conversion of Protestants. But pay attention, I entreat you, to discover concerning the nature of the religious movement in England termed Puseyism.
The English clergy were formerly too much attached to their Articles of Faith to be shaken from them. You might have employed in vain all the machines set in motion by Bossuet and Jansenists of France to reunite them to the Romish Church; and so the Jesuits of England tried another plan. This was to demonstrate from history and ecclesiastical antiquity the legitimacy of the usage of the English Church, whence, through the exertions of the Jesuits concealed among its clergy, might arise a studious attention to Christian antiquity. This was designed to occupy the clergy in long, laborious, and abstruse investigation, and to alienate them from their Bibles."
source: Desanctis, Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, p. 128, 134 quoted in, ‘Secret History of Oxford Movement’, by Walter Walsh p. 33
"I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on the late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones"
(Life, Vol. I, p. 211)
"As to our proposal recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare an object for common and general use...With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text [little imperceptible changes so that the protestant British won't see the obvious corruptions], and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable... ...The margin will give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles (life, Vol. I, p.228-229)
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory..." (ibid, p. 275)
"the Idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine Chastisements.." (ibid., Vol. II, p. 336)
"I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (life, Vol. I, p. 240)
...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and 'Jesus'-Worship have very much in common in their causes and results. Perhaps the whole question may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation...(Life, Vol. 2, p. 49-50)
"I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles (Life, Vol. I p. 251-252)
"it is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of first...The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences...It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. (Life, p. 138-139).
I am attempting to find any non-SDA source of information that supports this claim,
The answer to your question of "why the Catholic Church feels it necessary for us to be target number 1 to infiltrate and try destroy and alter our teachings through deception" is that they don't. Apparently your buddy Kang lied and you believed it.
I do not acknowledge though that all bible versions are likely to have been modified from the original though. I acknowledge that the Catholic Bible has been altered and the vast majority of the modern English version have been altered, but I believe the stream of Bibles/manuscripts that led to the 1611 King James Bible for English readers is near enough identical to the original and if I was to justify my faith doctrinally then I would just use the KJV.
A VIEW OF THE VERSIONS
THE KING JAMES VERSION
Examining the Positive & Negative Qualities Of Various Versions & Translations Of God's Holy Scriptures
A Critical Analysis
by Al Maxey
There are many people who feel that the KJV is THE Bible; that it constitutes the STANDARD by which all other versions and translations must be measured. Some have even gone so far as to state that the KJV itself was "inspired by God," and that it is 100% free of any errors or imperfections. Such attitudes have led some of the supporters of the KJV to condemn all other translations of the Bible as either inferior, or the intentional efforts of "Satan and his servants" to subvert the Word of God. Others, in turn, have accused the admirers of the KJV of virtual "idol worship."
It should never be overlooked that this version, like all others both before and after it, is the work of mere uninspired, fallible men to provide the people with God's Word in their own language. It is a noble effort, and one which has captured the hearts of countless people, but it also has its weaknesses as well as its strengths, as will be seen in the following study.
There are nine examples of TRANSLATION inaccuracies listed. And those are just examples. The cited items are:
INACCURACIES IN THE KJV
Although some have very heatedly, and even unkindly, contended that the KJV has NO inaccuracies .... that it is absolutely PERFECT ..... that it always accurately renders the original Hebrew & Greek texts and never misses the intended meaning of the original, this is simply not true! Notice the following examples:
Six examples of ARCHAEOLOGICAL inaccuracies.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INACCURACIES IN THE KJV
The translators of the KJV lived and worked over 400 years ago. This is a considerable length of time, especially considering the many important discoveries which have been made since then. These discoveries have shed considerable light on areas of the text that they simply did not understand at the time they made their translation. They did the best they could with what they had to work with, but through their lack of knowledge they made many unintentional errors in the text. The following are just a few examples:
This use of variety by the KJV translators, however, was done intentionally. They felt it made the Bible more interesting for the reader. Although variety of expression can indeed be good at times, and even necessary on occasion (some Greek and Hebrew words have many different shades of meaning, which should be reflected in a translation), yet this variety can be carried too far. Variety for variety's sake can lead to unnecessary confusion.
The English language has undergone tremendous changes since that time (as does any language). As a result, there are places in the text of the KJV that are simply impossible for the vast majority of people today to understand.
No extant version of the Bible, nor Ellen White's interpretations of it, can be ascertained as accurate and factual. Seems to me you're pushing that boulder uphill for no real reason except fear (for others or yourself, either way).
You have no more right to insist that YOUR understanding of the Bible is correct than any other sect.
CONCLUSION
There are literally hundreds and hundreds of other examples that could be cited, but these few will have to suffice to illustrate some of the major areas of concern with the KJV. Even though there are some obvious problems with this translation, it should not be rejected --- after all, there are problems with every translation and version! These are simply the efforts of mere fallible, uninspired men to render the Word of God into the current language of their own people. Flawed men will produce flawed translations and versions!
The most obvious positive quality of the KJV is the beauty of its language, and the dignity of its expression (at least to our modern day ears; it probably did not have that same effect upon its original readers in 17th century England). Some have even stated it sounds "holier" than more modern translations, and it is true that there is a definite "reverential ring" to the wording as perceived by modern day Americans. Again, however, this was not the intention of the KJV translators. The rhythm of the KJV has also made it much easier to memorize than many of the more modern translations. Although many of the newer translations and versions are far more accurate, it must be admitted that they just don't compare to the literary beauty of the KJV's expression.
The major concern of those embroiled in the "Translation Debate" that is raging today, however, is that far too many advocates of the KJV place undue importance upon this one translation. It is almost literally worshipped!! The concept of "one translation for all people for all time" is simply ludicrous, and displays only the foolishness and ignorance of those who make such ridiculous claims. Even the KJV translators themselves wrote, "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."
Such a limited view also does not take into consideration all the other languages of the world. If the KJV is the only infallible version (as some claim .... "The version the apostle Paul used!"), what are the non-English speaking peoples of the world to do?!
Must they learn English (17th century British English, of course) so as to have access to the one true version of the Bible? And what is to become of the millions of English speaking peoples of the future when our language evolves to the point where 17th century English is no longer understandable to the common man (as if it were now!!)? Must all people everywhere become fluent in a "dead language" in order to understand the "living Word?"
Dr. Jack P. Lewis sums it up this way: "Those who feel they can escape the problem of translations by retreating into the citadel of the KJV have a zeal for God that is not in accord with knowledge. There are no valid reasons for one to insist fanatically that everyone should read only the KJV; to declare that it is a mark of orthodoxy to use the KJV as a standard, consulting other translations only for comparisons; and to look with suspicion on the person who calls attention to the shortcomings of the KJV or who has other preferences in his reading.
"Were the KJV the form in which God first gave the Bible (as some have actually thought) there would be justification for the insistence that everyone must learn its brand of English in order to learn the will of God. But it is NOT the original Bible. The translators worked neither by inspiration nor with special Divine approval. There is no valid reason why God's Word should be frozen in 17th century English by those who have educated themselves to understand it, while men perish for want of understanding. The KJV Preface asks, 'How shall men meditate on that which they do not understand?'"
(source of quote - The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation).
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by adjensen
I am attempting to find any non-SDA source of information that supports this claim,
I can provide you with the video testimonials of people that support the claim...I doubt you will find the info from a non-sda source (we clean up our own messes) other than Alberto Rivera but I have all the official identity documentation and photographs to prove he was an ex-Jesuit and testimonies of support from Catholic priests and nuns that also vouch for him, as well can back up multiple things that he was said about the Jesuit dealings from numerous other credible sources as well.
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Fact: The Great Controversy books were illegally counterfeited in China
Fact: They were alter to reflect pro-Catholic teaching
Fact: The only ones who benefited from it were Catholics
You've shown that you will openly and blatantly lie to make a point, and yet you claim to be a Christian.
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by adjensen
You've shown that you will openly and blatantly lie to make a point, and yet you claim to be a Christian.
Incorrect. I was not aware of the post of information you found when I first made my point. The fact remains that Catholic involvement was still there.
The fact remains that Catholic involvement was still there
The only one 'delusional' here is who hasn't investigated their own Church history before
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The Bible is not Catholic,
the KJV has remained true to the original.
The information in the Bible though is not made up and should be taken as having actually occurred like it says
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
I can show that huge portions of the most fanciful stories in the Bible occurred....